Now I agree with all of the above but would like to add one more extremely important reason that explains both the lackluster fundraising and the stalled polling — Romney is being hurt by the political shadow of 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Here’s why:

During the course of writing about national politics, especially the 2012 presidential election, I have noticed a continuous theme in comments from PJ Media readers, comments from other conservative web sites that have picked up my columns, and personal emails from politically active conservative friends and associates commenting on my writings.

All three sources of comments shout loud and clear the reason why many conservatives do not support Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination.

That argument goes like this: Conservatives like to say that in 2008 they reluctantly supported “RINO” John McCain. They did not consider him to be a “true conservative.” (RINO is shorthand for “Republican in name only.”)

After getting “burned” by McCain’s loss to Obama, they are determined not to repeat the same mistake in 2012 by supporting Romney the “RINO.”

Here are some representative comments from the sources mentioned above:

“We went there last time with a conservative who was really a RINO. We are not going there this time.”

“Conservatives do not want another RINO. Romney has to be stopped.”

“Nominating a true conservative is the highest priority.”

“Romney is worse than McCain. We are not doing that again.”

“I will sit it out rather than vote for Romney”

“Romney’s RINOism will fail to charge up the Republican base.”

“Rather sit out 2012 and wait for a true conservative to rise in 2016”

“Last time the party leaders nominated a RINO who was going to attract independents, it was John McCain and we lost.”

This last argument has been voiced again by Republican moderates as a good reason to support Romney in 2012 and of course was used by those same moderates in 2008 to garner support for McCain during the primary process.

The argument worked and McCain was initially popular with independent voters.

However, in the fall of 2008 independents fled from John McCain — some would argue because Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate scared them off, but others would say she attracted conservatives and fired up the base. The truth is both arguments are correct and the voter groups partially canceled each other out, helping to ensure Obama’s victory.

Now looking to the 2012 election, independent voters hold the key to defeating President Obama, and any Republican nominee must be somewhat mainstreamto attract them or risk going down to a certain defeat.

But for conservatives to use “RINO” McCain’s inability to attract independents in the 2008 general election against Mitt Romney and thus withhold their support is flawed and dangerous thinking that will assist in President Obama’s re-election.

Other polling finds they are turning against Obama, and the Republican nominee must be someone to whom they can run.

But if only a “true conservative” is acceptable to the base in 2012, one who can win the GOP nomination and has a reasonable chance of defeating President Obama — that person better rise up fast because time is running out to organize and finance a campaign against an incumbent president who will raise close to $1 billion.

Besides, can anyone even define a “true conservative” these days? For example, could President Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986, even win his party’s nomination in 2012?

Romney is being dogged by the shadow of John McCain. This explanation also sheds light on why Romney is not catching on with the base and subsequently why his polling and fundraising are stalled and lackluster.

There is no doubt that Romney is beatable for the GOP nomination, but someone has to step up and actually beat him.

Just the idyllic concept of a “true conservative” candidate does not cut it.

Enter Texas Governor Rick Perry.

An informed source says Perry will make entry into the presidential race “within the month.” Is this three-term governor of Texas the man on the great white horse who can ride in and rescue the base from Romney the “RINO”?

The answer to that question will soon be obvious in polls and fundraising.

However, Governor Perry will have an even more toxic shadow than the one following Mitt Romney. This shadow will follow Perry throughout the primary process, then grow even larger during the general election, if Perry makes it that far. This is the shadow of a former Texas governor, President George W. Bush.

Remember during the 2008 election how Senator Obama waged his campaign more against President Bush than his actual opponent, Senator John McCain?

In 2012, if Governor Perry is the nominee he will be Obama’s George W. Bush version 2.0. Do Republicans really want to make it that easy for Obama’s campaign message machine?

The truth is Rick Perry is not George W. Bush, but a billion dollars of Obama’s campaign money can buy a lot of TV commercials convincing voters or making them at least think how Governor Perry could be George W. Bush the sequel.

But if Perry stalls out and Romney does manage to win the nomination, then the GOP may be in trouble with comments like “Romney is worse than McCain. We are not doing that again.”

The political shadow of John McCain is now hovering over Romney and George W. Bush’s shadow will soon be dogging Perry. Therefore, it is imperative that both men find a way to blot out these shadows before voters are spooked.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer, and political observer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on PJ Media, National Review, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, RedState, BizPacReview and Liberty Unyielding. . Myra's web site TheJesusStore.com contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow Myra on Twitter @MyraKAdams

So what if a billion dollars label Perry as Bush 2.0? The economy was better under Bush, and the electorate is worried about jobs and the economy, both of which have tanked under Obama. Perry can run on Texas being the state in the U.S. with the best job creation record for the last few years. “You want jobs? You want to improve the economy? Vote for the man who has the best record on both!” I mean, how much simpler could it be? “You want to unemployed and live with Momma? Then vote Obamma!” But I suspect the government’s debt situation will meltdown over the next twelvemonth, so almost anyone could beat Obama. Time will tell, of course, but economically speaking, true disaster is almost upon us. Romney’s religion and Perry being from Texas will be far at the back of most voters’ minds.

Oh well done you!
I knew I couldn’t read the article, not even a sentence.
That’s the whole issue with Myra Adams and that lovely Mexican man, Ruben Navarette, Jr. You don’t need to read the article to know what they’re going to say.
But the comments are always wonderful.
So proceed apace fellow PJMers.

Myra makes the crucial mistake of most all “strategists” in believing that Independents are “moderates” and to the left of the GOP. In fact, most Independents are Conservatives! Millions of Independents are disgusted conservatives who have left the GOP in the past decade. Then add in the Reagan Democrats who will readily vote for a conservative but have no interest in a mealy, country-club moderate republican. That is why, as Myra notes, Independents are now some 38% of the total. Rasmussen finds them self-identified as 40% conservative v. 20% liberal. Split the rest 50-50 and you get his 60-40% “more conservative.” Add Conservative GOP “likely voters” and you get Rasmussen’s warning to the soul-searching GOP management throughout 2010 that, “there are many more conservatives than republicans!”

And that is just what happened last November in the biggest mid-term political revolution, with the biggest voter turnout, in 70 years! The warning to the GOP establishment, and its pundits: “Turn Left and Lose!”

You beat me to it. Independent does not mean somewhere between moderate Repub and Dems.

“Now looking to the 2012 election, independent voters hold the key to defeating President Obama, and any Republican nominee must be somewhat mainstream to attract them or risk going down to a certain defeat.”

This quote is the foundation of Adams argument. “somewhat mainstream”? Oh, right. I forgot. The Dem talking point is that Conservatives are extreme. The Repubs should nominate someone who is more “mainstream”.

There’s another talking point she is echoing. Conservatives are “confused”. None of our reasons could actually be valid. We just got the wrong lesson from McCain losing. We are just sore about losing, and we blame McCain and his RINO-ism. We are just confused. Right.

It couldn’t possibly be that we cannot stand McCain’s politics, nor Romney’s. It cannot possibly be that McCain lost BECAUSE Conservatives could not support him, just as we cannot support Romney. It cannot possibly be that McCain actually would have been a third term of Bush, only worse. Oh, right, Adams probably thinks Bush was a fine President, since he was more “mainstream”.

Myra Adams hearts Romney. She is an unapologetic RINO herself. Of course she loves him. And like a RINO, she thinks Conservatives should donate to the Republican Party and otherwise shut up, because they are extreme (not mainstream) and an embarrassment. Every right-thinking person knows this.

She sounds just like a Democrat, which, of course, is what RINO’s are. Jackasses (Democrats>Donkeys>Jackasses) In Republican Clothes. JIRC’s.

Adams, Reagan was a Conservative. He was not “mainstream” as you define it. He did not “run to the center” to get elected. He was not a “moderate”. Yet, he swept the country. Huge victories. Even the Kennedy clan voted to re-elect him.

Bush I was elected based on Reagan’s record and policies. When he had to run on his own record, Perot captured the “independent” vote, and Bush lost.

Dole got about the same results, getting even fewer votes than Bush.

Bush II did better in ’00, though more moderate than Dole, but he still lost the popular vote. He did get a lot of support from Conservatives. In ’04, he did even better, as the country rallied behind a war-time President. He also got more Conservative votes that time.

The key to electoral victory is not the “independent”, somewhere-between-Repub-and-Dem vote. The key to victory is the Conservative vote. Conservatives believe strongly in principle. We will stay home or vote third-party. If you want to win the Presidency, you have to court our vote. Just because we are on the Right does not mean we automatically vote Republican.

This time, we are demanding a Conservative candidate. If we cannot get one now, in these awful times, then when will we ever be able to get one from the Republican Party? When will we ever be served?

The people I talk to who call themselves “independent” or who want to see a third party are all WAAAAY to the right of GHWB, Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney, and all of the other RINOs that we have been bedeviled with since Reagan left office.

And not only that…but these “independents” are considerably to the right of Reagan, especially when it comes to taxation, spending, regulation, monetary policy, and immigration.

As far as I’m concerned, if it comes down to Obama (or Hillary) vs. Romney (or any other RINO, for that matter), OR if, for any reason, Obozocare is not repealed, we’ll bail. We’ll start over on some foreign shore, never to return. We know other people who did the same after Obozo got elected, and we know now that we should have gone at the same time.

Most of the Independents I know are not disaffected Dems but disaffected REPUBLICANS who lean small-L libertarian and/or are strong constitutional conservatives. Granted this is anecdotal, but I do believe Myra’s interpretation of Mitt’s weak support is flat-out wrong. The huge issues I had with Juan McCainez (for whom I held my nose and voted) are unrelated for the most part with the issues I have with Mitt. McCainez couldn’t work up any opposing arguments against 0bama, he betrays conservatives at every opportunity, he has a love affair for no good reason with the worst media ever to exist, and McCain-Feingold speaks for itself in its abrogation of the 1st amendment. Mitt is an unapologetic unconstitutional big government statist (the damnable 0bamneyCare), he supports ClimateFraud, and he’s as plastic and fake as the day is long. Different issues from McCainez but just as bad.

I’ll fight like heck to get a conservative nominated. After that, I’ll vote for Mark Levin’s orange juice can over 0bama – meaning the horrible Mitt or Huntsman or [fill in the blank RINO] – but Mitt’s not getting a penny or a vote from me in the meantime.

Hey, here’s a thought. How about nominating a real conservative, perhaps even a woman like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin, and see what happens? I’m really getting sick and tired of hearing about all these “independents.” They really bore me. These people can see what Obama has done to this country in almost three years of madness. So do you really, really, think that they want to hand Jimmy Carter Part II a second term? What the above analysis fails to consider is that in the polls leading up to the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan was still almost neck-and-neck with Jimmy Carter. Oh, and how did that end up? That’s right, Reagan scored one of the biggest landslides in history. If a real conservative is nominated, all that person will have to do is prove, like Reagan did, that they are not some sort of maniac or idiot. If they can hold their own in a debate with Obama, then that’s all it will take to convince America that they really don’t need four more years of this madness.

But the sun-tanned country club oligarchs who run the Republicrats don’t agree with you.

Americans worth the name are too few in number. They want to dodge toward a Perot-like third party, divide the vote, and lose to a populist disaster, but it’s too late. They will instead force the suntanned bunch to a McRomney/Bachmmann ticket which the anti-Christian MSM will slaughter before they leave the box.

You know what? We just can’t give up. Really, that’s not in my DNA and I don’t think it’s in yours, too. There is too much at stake here. Elections DO have consequences and Obama’s horrific term in office has proven that. I still think that, given a viable option, Republicans AND independents will flock to the cause.

I’m answering your post because there are a lot of conservatives out there just like you. And while I know where you’re coming from and can sympathize with your frustration, that is certainly no reason to throw in the towel. Nope, not going to do it when the very fate of this nation is literally hanging in the balance. Look at what Obama has done in less that four years in office. Just imagine the terrible harm he could do if he had another four years in office. And, let’s not forget, within the next four years the president will have to make at least one, maybe two, Supreme Court nominations, a decision that would affect all of us for years to come. And also don’t forget this guy’s foreign policy, which has brought us nothing but shame and danger over the past few years.

No, you, me, and the other people out there simply can’t give up. There were plenty of people out there who said that Ronald Reagan couldn’t win, either. They treated him like a buffoon and thought he was stupid and insensitive. Yet he turned out to be one of the greatest presidents we ever had. There are always people out there who say you “can’t” do certain things and, considering the amount of ammunition that’s on their side, it would be easy to lose hope.

But losing hope is a luxury we do not have, friend. Losing hope is for losers and we have to turn this country back into a land of winners. So keep the faith and know that somehow, some way, a conservative will help lead the way in 2012. If we work hard at it, we can achieve our goals and get the right person elected. I look at my kids and I look at the terrible condition this country is in and say that the times demand that we not sit idly by and just hope for the best.

“Action this Day,” said Winston Churchill, and this election will demand a lot of action from all of us if we’re going to win it.

No disrespect, but this pep talk is eerily similar to what was being said during the McRat debacle.

While the damage inflicted by Obama is undeniable, there is no reason for me, as an American, to believe any republican will force the political class to adhere to the constitution and protect the republic. History proves otherwise.

We had eight years of Bush and not only did he not fulfill either obligation, he “softened the LZ” for Obama by bringing his fellow Texan’s Great Society programs to their disastrous fruition.

No thanks.

So called Conservatives have inextricably bound themselves to the Republican party. Through countless betrayals, sell outs, lies and deceptions still the conservatives can be counted on to support whatever candidates republicans vomit up.

This fact became apparent during the 06 campaign when Republicans were absolutely hysterical when some began to suggest a third party dedicated to conservative principles. It’s noteworthy that conservatives exhibited no less hysteria in defending the republicans. It is also noteworthy that the Republicans got smoked in 06.

As a result of this dutiful conservative obeisance towards a profligate republican party and the dire threat to my nation and culture that obeisance and the current regime represents, I call myself an American rather than a conservative.

Sorry. It’s been too dangerous to go along to get along for a while now.

Finally; Obama is a threat to this nation, culture and people. Why aren’t republicans going after the “Fast and Furious” high crimes and misdemeanors? Why aren’t they beating Obama and holder insensate with that? Are conservatives holding them back?

The primary campaign is going to be the most important part of the 2012 election and the more strong Republican/Conservative candidates the better. I hope Sarah Palin and Governor Rick Perry both enter and fight it out for the hearts and minds of the country. We are not at a normal election. Obama and his policies are threatening the very marrow or our culture and country. We need the best candidate to come to the fore and the bright lights of the national primary debate is the best way to energize our national electorate to sustain our endangered Republic.

We saw the Palin documentary yesterday, and she IS the candidate. She has already been slimed and undermined to the extent possible by the MSM, so she has nothing but upside. We were not prepared for the visceral exhilaration that this movie engendereed. Go see it, before you make any judgements on Palin, because the media perception is simple false.

She will run as a REFORMER under the GOP banner. Don’t we all recognize that we need to return to core values?? That is the direction that Sarah is leading. That’s what the Tea Parties are all about.

The only reason she wouldn’t be the next president is if she chooses not to run. The time and the person are in perfect synchronicity, and she will bring big majorities with her! Then demand that they abide by her reform concepts elected her, and that they’ve just given lip-service to until now!!

If this party cannot nominate a fiscally conservative candidate who is not part of the establishment (and Romney and Perry are establishment), which is not asking much, than fiscal sanity will have to wait until 2016, and we force Obama, and Democrats to clean their own mess up for four years. Conservative, as a word, should never mean “conserving the welfare state and bowing to moderates”, but rather, should mean “conserving the Republic, the founders vision, and conserving the US Constitution”!
Patrick Henry did not say “Give me liberty, or give me slower growth and preservation of an established, well preserved welfare-state” The choice was liberty or death. A Romney/Huntsman, or Perry/Gore ticket will not restore the Republic, but institutionalize O’Romney-Care, monetization of debt, and the subsidation of poverty and regulation of productivity. If the so-called independants are still asleep, let them count sheep!

“…she attracted conservatives and fired up the base. The truth is both arguments are correct and the voter groups partially canceled each other out, helping to ensure Obama’s victory.”

You left out a elephant sized factor out of that equation. Those on the right who so tired of the RINOs that the gatekeeper of the right keep sending us -they stayed home. Also, Yes, Sarah fired up the base but she was stiffled by the McCain-iacs and she and they were forced not to say anything negative about the Marxist from nowhere(other than a submissive bow)that could have stopped this unknown Manchurain candidate in his tracks.
McCain lost, only because he ran one of the worse campaigns ever. My oppont is presidentail doesn’t help-his rushing to DC to look blank on economic solutions was his ending-having had no experience in governing at all-beyond the Keating five fiasco and his gang of 14 betrayals mixed in with his arrogant bluster de jour. And now that same crowd of gatekeepers (Will, Krauthammer, Coulter, Rove, etc) has pounced upon Sarah and veotoed her that their mechanical unprinciples liberal-lite Rahm-ney can get in and continue what Obama started. Why else has the GOP deliberately not closed the cross-party primaries that always favors RINOs?

I’ll wait for Sarah who because of her poor treatment, by the party and McCains, is more than wise to their gatekeeper antics and has already made a successful end run to the people directly, perhaps ending party power forever.
Go Sarah!

I liked Palin, read her book (have not seen her new movie yet) but am cautioned by the fact that she has never come out against the bailouts which Obama and McStain quickly voted for. I think this is an important fact that should not be overlooked with Palin. There are plenty of so-called fiscal conservatives who advocate for free markets but temper their support when there are well connected banks and other companies that hold their handout for a reward for financial failure. This is not capitalism at work, it is cronyism at its best. Palins silence on this key economic issue is troubling, not withstanding her good record in Alaska.

To a certain extant the premise that it’s Bush’s fault is true. Because after eight years of enduring a RINO president the conservative base was less than enthusiastic at the prospect of voting for another one, that being said you fail to offer any why a different RINO, in this case Romney deserves to be supported for any reason except that it’ his turn.

Bush gave us Ted Kennedy’s education bill, the over priced prescription drug plan, McCain’s campaign finance law, the wonderful TSA airport screeners, and let us not forget the attempted legalization of all the illegal aliens in the country. Romney can’t even admit that romneycare was a mistake, while at the same time telling us Obamneycare is bad.

So while I will grant you a RINO would not be as destructive to the country as the Marxist we have as president now that is no reason to support one in the primary or the general election. If all the RINO dose is take the country to their socialist utopia slower we the people still loose.

Instead let’s try killing off parts of the government instead of slowing the growth.

Geez, Myra! The shadow of John McCain’s campaign? His campaign was nothing but a shadow! At least you do seem to recognize that Romney is a RINO of the first order.

Romney’ s problems are of his own making. And, he can’t bring Sarah Palin in to prop him up (i.e., bring a pair to the ticket) because he and his his “stalwart” army have tried to appease the media and the leftists by taking endless shots at her.

Try this on for size. This conservative did not support McCain, and only voted for The Shadow because Sarah Palin was on the ticket. PERIOD! Think I’m bluffing? Watch me, come November ’12!

The problem that Romney and the rest of these cats face is not that they are RINO’s. That implies that there is some great virtue in being a Republican. There isn’t. The only difference between R’s and D’s is the letter. I, and apparently a lot of others like me, want a Constitution supporting Conservative! If the FGOP (Formerly Grand Old Party) doesn’t give me that choice, I will write one in.

President Obama is radioactive, politically toxic given the stagnant job creation & inflation any Republican will do against what Obama is selling which is more tax increases, more job losses, & more government growth. 2012 is not 2008. It’s a completely different environment with the Tea Party.

Senator McCain is marginalized & any other RINO will be as well. His shadow is about as small as President Obama’s nonexistent leadership.

As for the “Palin drove votes away” meme chanted endlessly by the media and GOP elites, please note the following. I voted for Sarah Palin in the sincere hope that McCain would quickly succumb to his age and aliments. I had every intention of voting Libertarian until she was put on the ticket.

I hate the current resident of the white house for what he is doing to our country, I hate every single policy he has or has tried to implement. BUT, if the GOP puts another RINO like Romney, Guliani, Huntsman or Perry on the ticket I will consider putting an Obama sign in my damned yard.

And Al, if I knew where you lived I’d come by and tear that sign to shreds. Romney would be 100% better than Obama and frankly we are not going to find anyone perfect. He would have been a far superior candidate than McCain or any other conservative in the field. Just my opinion, but I did work in his campaign so maybe I am a bit biased.

So, Claudia, since you worked for his campaaign, maybe you have some insight for us on exactly what his Conservative credentials are.

And, another thing, your desire to tear down that sign does prove, to me, that you are Romney campaign-trained. You guys are as bad as the Ron Paul-ites about ripping on everyone you perceive as a competitor. Another reason I will never vote for him!

“Independents, according to a Gallup poll, now comprise 38% of the electorate..”

this may be technically true but to assume that independents are of the same mind is ludicrous and this reason alone should deter the strategy of catering to this blob– how is it possible to cater to everything/everyone at once hoping to defeat obama when this tactic alone is the hallmark of democratic imaging/labeling

if the republicans keep trying to foist the endangered rino expect the ranks of the “independents” to rise over the next several years as disaffected “conservatives and non-Libertarian libertarians” pull the plug on the republican party

daxypoo, I think the plug has already been pulled. What we are seeing now is the early stage of the R’s circling the drain, looking for someone to grag them in. They are likely to find that person if they aren’t smarter than they are showing!

I don’t know enough about Rick Perry yet to say much…. but one thing I haven’t heard him described as is a RINO. Can’t say the same about G. W. Bush.

The Republicans have some good conservative choices. Cain, Christie, West, Bachmann, Palin, Rubio, or Paul to name a few. Throw in a nice RINO running mate like Daniels, or Huckaby and they could clean Obama’s clock. This is one time the Republicans need to come up with a Power Ticket. Pawlenty, Santorum, Johnson, Huntsman and the like need to step aside.

Romney has really groomed himself for this job. He really wants it and will go at it the same way he’d pursue a hostile takeover of a major corporation. He’s going to take it to Obama like a true conservative would (i.e. like Cain, Christie, West or Bachmann would). It will take a strong conservative candidate to supplant him. Perry just may be the one.

If you haven’t heard Perry (Al Gore’s Texas campaign chairman) a RINO then you haven’t been listening to conservatives here in Texas.

The ONLY two things Ricky got out in front on was mandating (over parents objections) the inoculation of jr. high girls for HPV, and the “Trans Texas Corridor” to help flood the continent with Chinese goods and Mexican illegals faster.

His response to AZ taking the fight to “O” over the border was “not the right kind of law for Texas”.

The Texas economy weathers every economic storm better for precisely one reason, very, very little state government. The legislature only meets for a few months every other year, is Constitutionally bound to spend no more than projected income, and the governor is little more than a ceremonial office.

To give Rick Perry credit for the Texas economy is like giving a fisherman credit for the tides because he lives by the sea.

“I don’t know enough about Rick Perry yet to say much…. but one thing I haven’t heard him described as is a RINO. Can’t say the same about G. W. Bush.”

Yeah, you are right. What I would describe GWBush as is “traitor”.
Thank you GWBush for the stimulus which provided the precedent to allow Obama to spend more money in 2 1/2 years more than any president before him. He still wants trillions more. He will never stop spending, and you put the blank checkbook right in his hand.
Thank you GWBush for the “Patriot Act”, which not many people understand. The more one understands about the “Patriot Act” the more one comes to realize it was put in place to spy on citizens and open up citizens to greater amounts of searches and seizures.
Thank you GWBush for declaring a national state of emergency for the United States, which we are STILL IN. How can anyone wonder about all the laws that the executive branch has been bending and breaking, when they are in such fertile ground to do so? As they say: “Never let a good crisis go to waste” Well, every year this filthy Marxist is in the White House, it’s another national crisis that they can take advantage of. Stimulus? National Crisis? Healthcare? National Crisis. The crisis scenario gives secret power to the executive branch that congress and the senate don’t even know about. Power that our pal Bush transferred to Obama by not declaring the emergency over.

Man, this comment series is all about Sarah Palin. Poor Mitt! He will fade out, it looks like.

ALSO: in my opinion, something no one wants to talk about very much is that evangelical protestants are taught that Mormonism is a cult. They may say that they do not like his RINO character, but the basal response is to reject him for his mormonism. Very powerful, even more powerful than anti-Catholicisim, in my opinion.

I suppose that the real reason conservatives dislike Obambi has nothing to do with him being a Marxist, it’s just because he is half black. Sometimes it really is as simple as not wanting any more RINOS.

Here are some representative comments from the sources mentioned above:

•“We went there last time with a conservative who was really a RINO. We are not going there this time.”
•“Conservatives do not want another RINO. Romney has to be stopped.”
•“Nominating a true conservative is the highest priority.”
•“Romney is worse than McCain. We are not doing that again.”
•“I will sit it out rather than vote for Romney”
•“Romney’s RINOism will fail to charge up the Republican base.”
•“Rather sit out 2012 and wait for a true conservative to rise in 2016”
•“Last time the party leaders nominated a RINO who was going to attract independents, it was John McCain and we lost.”

There is a key missing reason here. I have heard it repeatedly from well informed conservatives:

“McCain was the media choice and was shoved down our throats. Romney is “liked” by the liberal media. We won’t be fooled again.”
nuff said.

Media choice? Yes, but our gatekeepers loved him. Until that primary crossover loophole is closed, liberals will continue to select the GOP candidate. If it isn’t Sarah,(whom our gatekeepers viciously attacked out of fear) I will be hard put to vote GOP, if it’s Rahm-ney -I’m outta here, and I frankly don’t care if it’s third party of micky mouse -no more RINOs!

Well, let’s at least get right the message from 2008. McCain being a RINO had little to do with it. Maybe that supressed his vote 1%. Probably not.

The message of 2008 is that progressives are willing to do ANYTHING to win. They deliberatedly tanked the economy and nearly brought on a world-wide depression that year. What will they be willing to do in 2012? Nuclear war? They have no limits. The lesson should be that the Republicans should prepare the public for armageddon.

Secondarily, McCain gave up. The fearless war hero had no stomach for the fight when it required that he point out the background of a mixed race con man. The lesson is that we need a Republican with political courage, not just physical courage.

Perry appears to be the best fit. He has already said things about the marxists that nobody else has had the courage to say. And the success of Texas gives him ammunition to respond to every political attack. Bachmann might do, but she may already have been marginalized by the early stages of the relentless attack she will face. Palin has the guts, but nobody can overcome the slime she has been covered with. Christie might do, because he has the stomach for a fight.

Personally, I don’t see that being a RINO has much to do with it, other than the fact that in general the RINO’s don’t seem to have the guts to fight. The problems the marxists have created are so stark, even the RINO’s know what the solutions have to be.

About your first point: “McCain being a RINO had little to do with it. Maybe that supressed his vote 1%. Probably not.”

I can not stress strongly enough how anti-McCain I was, not because he was not a good Repugnican, but because he has such a fine record of doing almost nothing to support the Constitution unless it is in his own best interest (like when he suddenly became such an advocate for suppressing illegal immigration while his 2010 race was being waged). I almost got whiplash watching him change that position! Indeed, as we see now, he was as good a Repugnican as anyone who was likely to get the nomination. He was just MISERABLE as a conservative.

It depends, I suppose, on what one’s definition of RINO is. My definition is “a person who doesn’t claim to be a Dimmocrat, but who is willing to totally ignore our Constitution (synonymous with Dimmocrat) in order to get and hold power over the people.”

I will not knowingly vote for another one, and Romney looks amazingly like the same song, next verse.

I’ll never forget when McCain said he was going to “take the high road” and not make any negative comments about his opponent and his deterimination to conduct a “civil” campaign. The RINOS completely underestimate the anger of the true conservatives and independents and their desire for the next GOP candidate to take off the gloves and attack Obama with every thing at their disposal to remind voters of his record and his intent to destroy our country. Just look at the positive response Donald Trump, of all people, had just because he stood up and was not intimidated by the President. Time for the “milk toast” candidates to step aside.

It’s worth remembering that Roosevelt was re-elected twice during a great depression that he, like Obama, helped prolong. No reason to assume history won’t repeat itself in this case.

Also, Obama’s commitment to current entitlement programs and his determination to create new ones seem, if the various polls are correct, to be supported by a majority of Americans. That being the case, it’s reasonable to assume that the perception of republican/conservatives removing granny from life support and depriving little jose of his free school lunches will increase the closer we get to Nov. 2012.

Also consider the abject terror and mute capitulation displayed by republican/conservatives at the mere flash of any race card, and you have a party easily dismissed as racists. (And I’m assuming that race card will be played more often during this campaign because it always works. Jackson Lee is already warming it up.)

As always, the subject of race is, at best, a delicate one. And I believe Americans want desperately to live in a post racial society.

But it is undeniable that Obama is not, by any definition of the term, a post racial president. Nor is Holder a post racial Attorney General. (In fact, Holder has declared himself to be the exact opposite) Can Hispanic illegal aliens and their supporters be considered post racial Americans? Only if you’re a libertarian.

Obama is not just a cunning, vacuous liar. He is a symbol, a standard bearer for minority voting blocs (including the liberal/progressives) who will not abandon him.

This is a political reality. And given the apparent disinclination of republican/conservatives to deal with that issue forthrightly, I just don’t see this guy losing his position.

That said, I think it is a far better and more realistic goal to acquire republican majorities in the house and senate and send a couple of fighters to call Obama on everything he has done to this nation since 08.

The majority in the House has managed to slow Obama’s (and the progressive) program a bit..

Perhaps with a majority in both houses we can undo some of the harm done and begin to hold him accountable.

Romney had his chance and LOST. He’s a RINO, he still supports RomneyCare (and ObamaCare by proxy), and he’s a flip-flopper. No friend of Conservatives. We need a solidly Conservative candidate who can lead this country BACK from the brink of destruction.

“For example, could President Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986, even win his party’s nomination in 2012?”

Of course he could. The Ronald Reagan who would be here in 2012 would not have made that mistake. As it is the Ronald Reagan I hope appears for 2012 will have learned from that mistake and will be someone who will credibly claim to never make such a mistake in the future.

“But if Perry stalls out and Romney does manage to win the nomination, then the GOP may be in trouble with comments like “Romney is worse than McCain. We are not doing that again.””

If Romney is the GOP nominee, the GOP should be in trouble. I will not advocate or vote for a liberal who will some of their nonsense through–Romney–as opposed to a liberal who will not be allowed to get anything through–Obama.

It is distressing to see so many comments that label people as RINOs who are mainstream Republicans. I agree completely with comment #20 by proreason, that this is counterproductive. Calling Mitch Daniels a RINO is insane.

Ronald Reagan had a RINO record as Governor of California. He endorsed and signed an extremely liberal abortion law. He could never have been nominated if the “anti-RINO” promoters of ideological purity were around in 1980.

None of the current and potential candidates has a perfect record. Governors must govern and that means making compromises on some issues in order to enable the larger issues to be addressed in the proper way. Members of Congress and the legislatures must also compromise and endorse and vote for some issues in order to gain support for their positions on more important issues.

Romney is far from perfect (all the potential candidates are) but he has been an effective executive in really demanding positions, which is the key preparation for being President. His takeover of the about to collapse Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required executive skills similar to those needed for the Presidency: there was a firm deadline, negotiations with many other countries were continual, and the situation was highly public. The inexperience of Obama is a major cause for his many mistakes, including many bad cabinet selections. He had never faced any of the executive challenges Romney met successfully in Salt Lake City.

This is not an argument for or against Romney, but it is an argument for req

Well, just look at the people running for office last year that the mainstream Republicans helped throw to the wolves. Not a single one of those unfortunate souls was what one would call a RINO. As best I remember, they were mostly running on a strong Constitution platform. So, one can assume that the mainstream Repubs are not interested in electing all who run under the R label, just those who toe the “go along to get along” line.

Calling Mitch Daniels a RINO may, in your view, be insane, but to believe that he is a supporter of our Constitution borders on imbecilic.

The big problem for the mainstream Republicans is that they view those of us who believe in adhering to the Constitution as useful idiots.

“Romney is far from perfect (all the potential candidates are) but he has been an effective executive in really demanding positions, which is the key preparation for being President. His takeover of the about to collapse Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required executive skills similar to those needed for the Presidency…”

Surely you must recognize that the problem isn’t experience -Obama lacks it totally and is on the verge of re-election because all that matters in AMerica 2000 plus is feelings and ideology. Free lunches and free sex , coupled with guiltless abortion are hard to beat. A moral and solid character with sufficient experience and a heluva positive message (remember that “yes we can” nonsense -it worked) can turn the tables. That person is Sarah Palin -no one can beat her simple honesty and record of taking down, even her own party when they’re wrong. She’s not a wimp and doesn’t fear taking the hits ,but unlike the others, she’ll take them on nose to nose -the one thing that McCain and W failed to do.

The last thing America needs is a totally unprincipled executive, and that describes rahm-ney best.

It is distressing to see so many comments that label people as RINOs who are mainstream Republicans. I agree completely with comment #20 by proreason, that this is counterproductive. Calling Mitch Daniels a RINO is insane.

Ronald Reagan had a RINO record as Governor of California. He raised tax rates. He signed the pre-Roe abortion law even though he had pro-life views. He could never have been nominated if the “anti-RINO” promoters of ideological purity were around in 1980.

None of the current and potential candidates has a perfect record. Governors must govern and that means making compromises on some issues in order to enable the larger issues to be addressed in the proper way. Members of Congress and the legislatures must also compromise and endorse and vote for some issues in order to gain support for their positions on more important issues.

Romney is far from perfect (all the potential candidates are) but he has been an effective executive in really demanding positions, which is the key preparation for being President. His takeover of the about to collapse Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required executive skills similar to those needed for the Presidency: there was a firm deadline, negotiations with many other countries were continual, many conflicting interests had to be dealt with, and the situation was highly public. The inexperience of Obama is a major cause for his many mistakes, including many bad cabinet selections. He had never faced any of the executive challenges Romney met successfully in Salt Lake City.

This is not an argument for or against Romney. It is an argument for requiring at a minimum a demonstration of really strong executive accomplishment before anyone could be considered for the nomination.

The United States, is not a “company” to be run. In fact, that fallacy has created a great many of our problems. The president, as the chief law enforcement officer and cnc of the military, should not have an “agenda” that part is handled by the people via the Congress. It isn’t just the size and power of the federal government that has to be trimmed, the power of the presidency needs to be brought back down into line with what it is supposed to be (hint, no more wars without Congress declaring them).

We don’t need someone with loads of “executive experience” if they do not hold the Constitution dear. And Mitt (Gee I’m glad we have such strong gun laws in Mass and hey the state should run healthcare)Romney apparently does not.

Let’s see, so we shouldn’t nominate Rick Perry because George W. Bush was governor of Texas, and that somehow makes all governors of Texas bad. What kind of stupid reasoning is this.

The flaw in Adam’s reasoning is the apparent belief that conservative candidates don’t gain the support of independents. A strong, principled conservative candidate is just as likely to gain the vote of independents as a wishy-washy, sometimes conservative, sometimes not candidate like McCain or Romney. Polls consistently show that conservatives outnumber liberals in the electorate by roughly 2 to 1. The very last thing Republicans should do is nominate the so-called “mainstream” media’s favorite Republican. They did that in 2008 and look what it got them. The MSM turned on John McCain like a pack of wolves the minute he got the nomination.

The Obama campaign and it’s lackeys in the MSM are going to vilify any Republican who gains the nomination, it doesn’t matter whom. The very last thing Republicans should do is let Obama and the MSM pick their candidate.

I agree about that tiring need to attract independents – swelling one’s priniciples is hardly attractive and becoming a liberal to get their votes make you alosing liberal.
Let the indies pick, but don’t sell your souls to attract them, for if you do , you;ll lose as many conservatives who will stay out of it.

Let the indies choose-they can have the messiah from Hades, or a well principled conservative who seriously intends to restore fiscal sanity to this nation.

Polls consistently show that conservatives outnumber liberals in the electorate by roughly 2 to 1.

No. Polls consistently show that many people self-identify as conservative — EVEN THE DEMOCRAT RESPONDANTS. What that means is that people in general regard fiscal responsibility as a conservative trait.

If it were fiscal responsibility etc that were the breakdown this would be simple and easy to take care of, but the imbeciles who call non reactionaries “RINOs” tend to be social “conservatives” who are just as much an abomination as Obama and even more of a minority.

The problem is and has been SOCIAL conservatives, not fiscal conservatives, and not the notion of conservatism in general.

As Myra Adams is pointing out, keep mucking about with the nomination process to assure ideological social conservative purity and what we all gain is the right to have democrat presidents calling the shots until you morons finally die off (i.e. about 8 more elections ought to do away with the lot of you.)

That seems pretty much the summary of the GOP offerings for 2012. Since it worked against disorganized and dispirited Democratic moderates and conservatives in 2012, many seem to think it will work again in 2012 against the incumbent President and a more united and determined Democratic Party.

It sure would be nice though, in one election to have a Republican candidate who thought about AMERICA instead of the narrow conservative GOP base.

Palin brings one thing to the contest that I’m surprised no one’s commented on yet: a Reganesque brio that none of the other potential candidates named to date (with the possible exception of Christie) have.

Palin is the only one on either side who seems to be genuinely upbeat. Given how much Americans need to feel hope, that’s going to be a factor.

If the GOP nominates Romney or Huntsman I will not suport either of them in any way.No money,no volunteering, and no vote.I held my nose and voted for McCain(whom I despised as a traitor to the conservative agenda),primarily because he was so old, and I hoped Palin would succeed him.But I will never support another RINO/CINO again.I will no longer be used and abused by the GOP, which is no longer an effective vehicle for a conservative agenda.Yes, I understand that sitting this one out will probably mean the socialist piglet will be re-elected,but I am confident the American people will at least prevent him from having a majority in Congress.At that point he becomes an impotent lame-duck president.More important we will have destroyed the GOP and will have an opportunity to create viable state Conservative Parties that will provide a real vehicle for the advancement of our agenda.

This: “Yes, I understand that sitting this one out will probably mean the socialist piglet will be re-elected,but I am confident the American people will at least prevent him from having a majority in Congress.”

If I get the gist of what the article says since there is nobody there out except for Romney so I should once again hold my nose, which is really almost every POTUS election starting in 1988, and support another Me Too Republican. You column throws in Perry is not a viable candidate. If the GOP primary voter goes for the “Next In Line” election that is fine but I will boycott the general election. I am a big supporter of having Zero in for another 4 years then fave Romney destroying the GOP brand, like Bush II did. Yes there is a ton of great potential candidates for 2016. Yes I think this country can withstand another 4 years of Zero then having to face a potential 8 years of Mr. Empty Suit.

No matter who our eventual nominee is, that person will get my full-throated support. This country will not survive another 4 years of BHO.

My choice? There is one person who knows how to motivate and rally the base. There is one person who can speak to the heart and soul of the average America, even Independents. There is one person who knows how to outfox the media:

In the same sense that Rick Perry is not George W. Bush, neither is Mitt Romney John McCain.

Mitt Romney is far more conservative and competent. Romney has leadership in spades compared to McCain. Romney may not be the most extreme right-wing conservative in the pack but he is a conservative– pro-life, low taxes, less regulation, smaller smarter government, strong military, etc. Nothing RINO about any of that.

People accusing Romney of being a RINO do so in the face of volumes of evidence against it, his record, his policy positions, his vision for a strong America eloquently stated in his book NO APOLOGY. It is irrational to worry that McCain is Romney’s forerunner. If Romney had been selected in 2008 when the economy started to turn, we very well would have spared us all John McCain. Romney was the anti-McCain.

On all these issues, McCain has the conservative credentials, and McCain is currently rated as one of the 10 most conservative Senators based on his voting record. It might help if people here checked out voting records.

Romney pro-life? No. He ran as a pro-abortion advocate for Governor of Massachusetts.

This is a ridiculous litmus test issue. The only people who give a damn about this are reactionary social conservatives, which are a minority of the GOP, much less the electorate in general. The rest of the country moved on in 1973.

Does the concept of “picking battles you can actually win” resonate at all in the empty cavity between your ears? This is why the GOP is in a losing position and will stay this way — people like you are wasting bandwidth on stuff that’s been long settled and unwinnable. You may not like this. Too bad. Put on your big boy pants.

I think that the article may be right about there being conservative angst concerning Romney due to McCain’s candidacy in 2008 and right that Romney is not the GOP candidate to beat Obama, but the article is very wrong in its analysis – to the extent it does any — about the 2008 election. We all need to recognize the multiple factors that made 2008 a Democrat year and not fall into name calling as to McCain. McCain was and is plenty conservative; he was the one and only Republican that polls showed he could beat Obama and Hillary in the 2008 — every other GOP candidate was way behind; McCain became the GOP candidate because he went out and won the primaries; and with Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain was in the lead in September 2008. Then, the financial crisis hit. As a result of the perfect storm of (i) the financial crisis creating economic uncertainities that favor Democrats historically and did in 2008, (ii) A Bush Administration bank bailout that muddied the waters of the differences between the parties as to economic policy and muting the Reaganeaue message of the McCain-Palin ticket on the campaign trail, (iii) the anti-GW Bush sentiment that the political Left had generated and that GW Bush did not conteract sufficiently, (iv) the absurdly pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media that acted as a day-in, day-out propagandist for Obama, (v) the Obama 7 to 1 money advantage and (vi) demographic changes in the country (McCain would have won with the 1992 demographics), Obama won in 2008. Brit Hume has it right that not even Ronald Reagan with Abraham Lincoln as his running mate could have won in 2008. McCain campaign managers Schmidt and Davis did not do their candidate well in dealing with the political headwinds, but the McCain loss was not due to their poor performance or McCain not being conservative enough.

36. Phil,
Perhaps you are right about McCain voting conservatively more than his 2008 opponents.
But in the contest that mattered, he refused to aggressively take the battle to his opponent as any warrior rightfully should have done. He didn’t even allow Sarah to be the usual “attack dog” role that the VP usually fills.
So he allowed the false Obama accusations to stand unchallenged, he didn’t raise the quite serious issues of BHO’s prior acquaintences and predilections, and did not demand that the MSM properly vet the candidate. In these ways he abjectly failed the conservative cause by failing to contest the ground on which the campaign was fought. He ALLOWED Palin to be slimed, rather than stand up for her.
I honor McCain’s bravery & military service, but his legislative and elective postures are immensely underwhelming!

Curtmilr, your argument faulting McCain for not taking the fight to Obama forgets some things and assumes some tougher rhetoric on the campaign trail would have made a difference. McCain won the debates, particularly Saddleback where McCain’s lifetime of experience made Obama’s “above my pay grade” type comments look silly. McCain’s videos were very good. What McCain did on the campaign trail, consistent with his approach to the campaign, was to take the “high road” and argue substance. That in 2008, however, did not work. Obama’s vague “hope and change” rhetoric and stylish performances did. Had McCain knows how torun a tough talking camapign (see 2010 re-election to Senate), but had he talked tougher on the campaign trail in 2008, the result would have been the same.

Which leads me back to my point about what mattered in the 2008 election: the financial crisis and economic uncertainties favoring Democrats, the Bush Administration bank bailout, the anti-GW Bush sentiment that was (unfairly) widespread in the country, the absurd press bias for Obama, the lopsided money advantage had by Obama and demographics favoring Democrats. If substance and Commander in Chief qualifications had mattered, McCain would be President.

I point all this out in part because it would be a mistake to think that the key to 2012 success will be for the GOP candidate simply to rip up Obama and in part because some of the adverse factors in 2008 will still be around in 2012. The mainstream media press will be worse than ever, and don’t underestimate that factor — see the current debate over the debt ceiling in which Obama is being insanely irresponsible but he is being portrayed as being put upon by intransigent Republicans. The Obama money advantage will still be there. The demographics may not work so decidedly for Obama as in 2008, but they still will be there.

What the Republicans need is an articulate Conservative who can simply explain the Conservative agenda and why it is best for America. Reagan did this and won handily. He didn’t step to the left to attract voters, a no-win proposition anyway, but attracted voters because of his convictions the first election and his success in the second.

In 2008 and before the Republican grand poobahs made the mistake of trying to “enlarge the tent” by leaning left, by parroting Democrats by offering social programs and the rest. The Dems can always outdo that kind of thing and such will not sway Dem voters away from the party, but will turn off Conservatives.

Lastly, I’m one of those who will not vote in the Presidential election if they put up Romney or another bad candidate. Admittedly the likely pool of candidates is very weak, but if the Republicans again pick the worst of the lot, then they don’t deserve the support at that level. I’m satisfied with my state Reps, but the national party needs to grow a brain.

What the Republicans need is an articulate Conservative who can simply explain the Conservative agenda and why it is best for America. Reagan did this and won handily.

Horsepuckey. Carter had done everything but hand the keys to the white house to the soviets, and Reagan came along at a time when Americans were sick of this. Look at the number of vietnam commando movies that were IN PRODUCTION as Reagan was campaigning and/or were in the planning/shooting stages; this was indicative of the national mood. Americans wanted out of their national funk. The army botched a raid in Iran. Nothing was worth a crap.

Reagan was able to capitalise (thankfully) because the people wanted to hear that they were winners, not because of your idiotic impressions of ideological purity brought down on tablets from Mt Reagan.

What’s next, are you going to claim that democrats crossed lines because they were converted to the true conservative religion?